Holding back an "upchuck", I walked up to the counter, and asked the girl if they had any of Barrie's book in stock. As it turned out, they didn't. They were nice enough to order me a copy.

While I was there, I do what I always do in a book store. I looked for books by authors within the 9/11 Truth Movement. I was able to find one copy of Michael Ruppert's book, but nothing else.

Admittedly, I have never read Popular Mechanics' book. Wait a second. What's Jon pulling? How can he debunk a book without even reading it?

Here's how you do it.

If you're a frequent visitor to this site, you will know that there are several people citing Popular Mechanics's book as if it was the "holy grail" for 9/11 answers.

In Reprehensor's thread entitled, "Norman Mineta’s Testimony Proves 9/11 Was an Inside Job", I found 3 instances from just one person. Ronald "Pomeroo" Wieck.

Reference #1: "The information on this subject is abundant; 911myths has an entire section and the Popular Mechanics book devotes a whole chapter."

Reference #2: "The basic knowledge about the FAA and NORAD is available in the Popular Mechanics book."

Reference #3: "why not respond to the very specific and detailed chapter in the Popular Mechanics book that deals with the stand down canard?"

It occurred to me after reading his responses that it wasn't Popular Mechanics that the family members lobbied to investigate the attacks of 9/11. It wasn't Popular Mechanics that turned away whistleblowers with pertinent information regarding the attacks of 9/11. It wasn't Popular Mechanics that was mandated to give a "full and complete accounting" of the attacks of 9/11. It wasn't Popular Mechanics that was recently called "Derelict in its' duties."

The families lobbied Washington D.C. and the media to implement an independent commission to investigate the attacks of 9/11. You may have heard of it. It was called The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, or if you prefer, The 9/11 Commission.

The 9/11 Commission, as you can see from their very own website, was mandated to:

provide a “full and complete accounting” of the attacks of September 11, 2001 and recommendations as to how to prevent such attacks in the future."

It was the 9/11 Commission that the families called "derelict in its duties."

What does it say that people like "pomeroo" need to refer to a book other than the 9/11 Commission's report to "debunk" the 9/11 Truth Movement?

It says that the final report released by the 9/11 Commission isn't worth the paper it was written on.

This Government has made me a victim of Conspiracy Theories, because they haven't answered fully, or allowed anyone to ask the true questions of September 11th, and that's what I'm asking from you today. For exposure. We are not crazy. We have questions. We demand answers. [..] We're asking for a new investigation into the events of September 11th, and this time, a truly bipartisan, global, with families invested from the beginning, middle, and throughout the end.

Sorry, but Popular Mechanics' book doesn't cut it, and John McCain should be ashamed of himself.

Getting his butt whupped every day does require stamina. He doesn't have anything else to offer us. When cornered to provide answers and evidence, he just whines in anticipation of the next truth to come around and whupp his sorry butt.

Who do you think planned the war games on 9/11? And who do you think controlled them?

How do 3 towers collapse with Pyroclastic flows, without explosives being involved?

Do you understand what circumstances are necessary for a pyroclastic flow?

Do you know what a pyroclastic flow is?

You clearly do not understand the issues that the 9/11 Truth movement is investigating. It is not our job to answer every possible question imaginable. It is the governments job to answer the MOST IMPORTANT QUESTIONS surrounding 9/11.

David Griffin and others incorrectly describe the steel cores as the most important structural entity in the WTC towers. The steel cores certainly were important, as they supported all the elevators, plus nearly half of the floor loads. However, the outer walls were the strongest parts of the building. They supported the remainder of the floor loads, plus they resisted ALL of the wind loads. When the wind blew from the south, the steel on the south sides of the building was stretched, and the steel on the north faces of the towers was compressed. That way, the upper portions of the buildings were allowed to say up to 20 feet from side-to-side. The outer steel walls had to be VERY strong to resist these wind loads. This is especially true considering the towers were designed to resist hurricane-force winds. Because the outer walls were so strong, one would expect at least portions of them to be still standing after the towers collapsed. And that's exactly what happened: When the North tower fell, a very large part of one of its facades was still standing for a few seconds. It soon toppled because of the lateral (side-to-side) support was eliminated when the floors collapsed. When the dust settled, note that there were still fairly large portions of facade remaining, extending to a height of several stories. These remaining pieces had to be pulled down.

It would help greatly if David Griffin knew what he was talking about when he discusses building construction. He, and other "Scholars for 9/11 Truth," make one factual error after another when they speak about how the towers were built, and how they fell.

I did indeed explain the complete failure of the steel columns. Many were severed by the planes, leaving others to support more loads than they were designed to carry. This is a fact, not an opinion. The fires heated the steel. This is a fact, not an opinion. As the temperature of steel increases, its strength decreases. This is a fact, not an opinion. A building that has sustained severe structural damage, AND has acres of floor space buning, is in danger of collapse. This is a fact, not an opinion.

(Question: When you wrote, "Our comment is pure spin," is that a typo? Did you mean to write "Your"?)

I do read many architectural journals, and I have yet to come across one that argues that explosives were used to bring down the WTC.

If you're accusing me of lying, that's a mighty serious charge. The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that I'm deliberately not telling the truth. You can start by refuting anything I've written.

Commenting on the strength of the steel columns is no argument? I disagree. Just like Jon, when I comment on point A, you respond, "What about points B and C?" You and Jon don't bother to respond to my comments on point A, or explain why it's wrong.

Per your questions about the squibs: I believe what we're seeing in the photos is concrete dust being ejected as a result of the failure of the concrete floors at the points they are attached to the outer columns. The floors were supported by the outer columns. This is a fact (which David Griffin is ignorant of). It is not surprising that some floor sections would fail ahead of the pancaking collapse of floors. I surmise the pancaking caused immense vabrations in the columns below, strung enough to dislodge the bolts holding the floor trusses to the columns. I believe this caused localized breakage of concrete, producing the dust "squibs" we see in the photos.

Per your comment about thermite: Many materials burn brightly, giving a white appearance when overexposed in photos. Per the photograph showing the steel members with clean breaks: Steel is iron with carbon added. The more carbon you add, the stronger the steel becomes, and the more weight it is able to bear. This makes steel an excellent material for resisting static (non-moving) loads, or gradually-applied dynamic loads. However, carbon also makes steel brittle. The more carbon you add, the more brittle it becomes. A stong, sudden impact can indeed fracture a steel member. For example, look at photos the outline of the airplane in the facade of the North Tower.

1. Many steel columns were severed by the planes collisions, leaving a heavier load on those left in place.
2. Fires heated the steel causing it to lose it's strength.
3. A building that has sustained severe structural damage, AND has acres of floor space burning, is in danger of collapse.

Now let me discuss your so-called fact #1.

1a) The Boeings which allegedly hit the Twin Towers had both taken off with enough fuel for a transcontinental flight, but most of the jet fuel in the South Tower impact was consumed in the spectacular fireball, so presumably much more fuel was available for the fire in the North Tower. If the fires were the cause of the collapse then we would expect the North Tower to have collapsed more quickly than the South Tower. But the opposite happened: the North Tower collapsed 104 minutes after impact whereas the South Tower collapsed after only 56 minutes.

Now let me discuss your so-called fact #2.

2a) Steel is an excellent conductor of heat, so when you apply heat to a steel structure the heat spreads quickly. So the heat from the fires would have spread through the entire steel structure of each tower. The Twin Towers contained 200,000 tons of steel. Are we expected to believe that the fires from two loads of jet fuel provided sufficient heat to raise 200,000 tons of steel to the point where it became critically weak?

2b) Based on data provided by Corus Construction Centre, and assuming that the WTC architects followed the usual safety margins for load-bearing steel structures, we may conclude that even if the fire had heated the steel to 1022°F (550°C) that would not have been sufficient to cause the towers to collapse.

2c) Kevin Ryan from UL states "We know that the steel components were certified to ASTM E119. The time temperature curves for this standard require the samples to be exposed to temperatures around 2000F for several hours."

2d) The jet fuel burned for maybe ten minutes, and thereafter it was not jet fuel that was burning but rather, as Popular Mechanics' "Fact" says, "the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper". Since both WTC 1 and WTC 2 were still standing 50 minutes after the impacts, the alleged weakening of the steel had to be due to the previous 40 minutes of burning of "rugs, curtains, furniture and paper".

Now let me discuss your so-called fact #3.

3a) According to the Journal of Australian Fire Investigators (see http://www.tcforensic.com.au/docs/article10.html) paper, wood and leather ignite at 475°F (246°C) or less, far below the temperature required to weaken steel significantly. It is thus ludicrous to attempt to attribute the collapse of the Twin Towers to the weakening of its steel supports due to the combustion of "rugs, curtains, furniture and paper".

3b) No steel-beam high-rise had ever before (or since) completely collapsed due to fires! However, such complete and nearly symmetrical collapses in tall steel-frame buildings have occurred many times before -- all of them due to pre-positioned explosives in a procedure called “implosion” or controlled demolition. What a surprise, then, for such an occurrence in downtown Manhattan— three skyscrapers completely collapsed on the same day, September 11, 2001, presumably without the use of explosives.

I wait for your response to the points I raise.

I'll get to the rest at a later time.

Regards,

Gary
911truthnc.org
“it is possible to fool all the people all the time—when government and press cooperate.” George Seldes - "legendary investigative reporter"

Hello again, Gary, and thank you for your lengthly response. I appreciate the time you spent writing it, and I appreciate your replys to specific points I made. To save time, I copied and pasted your posting below. My responses are in ALL CAPS so you can differentiate at a glance between your words and mine. (I'm not using the capital letters in order to appear to be shouting.)

Hi Paul,

You seem sincere. So you ready to have a real debate? YES, THANK YOU.
No name calling. AMEN, GARY. Let's stick to arguing our points. LET'S.

1. Many steel columns were severed by the planes collisions, leaving a heavier load on those left in place.

YES, THIS IS A FACT. YOU CAN ARGUE THAT THE INCREASED LOADS WERE NOT SUFFICIENT TO BRING DOWN THE BUILDING, BUT THE LOADS WERE IN FACT INCREASED. IF YOU AND FOUR BUDDIES ARE CARRYING A LONG, HEAVY LOG, AND YOU SUDDENLY LET GO, THE WEIGHT YOUR FRIENDS ARE CARRYING WILL SUDDENLY INCREASE.

2. Fires heated the steel causing it to lose it's strength.
(I DIDN'T TYPE "IT'S." I TYPED "ITS." THE FORMER IS A CONTRACTION FOR "IT IS," THE LATTER IS POSESSIVE FOR "IT." I'M NOT TRYING TO RIDICULE, BUT INFORM. THIS IS PROBABLY THE MOST COMMON PUNCTUATION ERROR IN ENGLISH. I MAKE LINGUISTIC ERRORS, TOO, SO PLEASE ADVISE ME - LIKE JON DID - SHOULD YOU FIND ANY.) YES, THAT IS WHAT HEAT DOES TO STEEL. AGAIN, YOU COULD MAKE A CASE THAT THE HEAT INCREASE WAS NOT SUFFICIENT TO WEAKEN THE STEEL ENOUGH TO BRING DOWN THE BUILDINGS. BUT YOU CAN NOT FACTUALLY STATE THAT THE STEEL DID LOT LOSE STRENGTH.
3. A building that has sustained severe structural damage, AND has acres of floor space burning, is in danger of collapse. THIS IS ABSOLUTELY TRUE. NOTE THAT I SAID SUCH CONDITIONS CAUSE A BUILDING TO BE IN DANGER OF COLLAPSE. I DID NOT SY THE CONDITIONS GUARANTEED SUCH COLLAPSE.

Now let me discuss your so-called fact #1.

1a) The Boeings which allegedly (ALLEGEDLY? DID THE TITANIC "ALLEGEDLY" SINK?) hit the Twin Towers had both taken off with enough fuel for a transcontinental flight, but most of the jet fuel in the South Tower impact was consumed in the spectacular fireball, so presumably much more fuel was available for the fire in the North Tower. If the fires were the cause of the collapse then we would expect the North Tower to have collapsed more quickly than the South Tower. But the opposite happened: the North Tower collapsed 104 minutes after impact whereas the South Tower collapsed after only 56 minutes.

YOUR RESPONSE ABOVE RAISES A GOOD QUESTION, AND I BELIEVE I HAVE THE ANSWER. (PLEASE NOTE THAT YOU DID NOT MAKE ANY MENTION OF MY OBSERVATION THAT MANY STEEL COLUMNS WERE SEVERED, THUS WEAKENING THE OVERALL STRUCTURE.) PER YOUR OBSERVATION THAT THE SOUTH TOWER COLLAPSED IN LESS TIME THAN THE NORTH, EVEN THOUGH A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF FUEL WAS EJECTED: THE SOUTH TOWER WAS HIT AT A LOWER LEVEL THAN THE NORTH. YOU CAN PLAINLY SEE THIS ON THE PHOTO YOU ATTACHED. THAT MEANS THAT THE DAMAGED PORTION OF THE TOWER WAS HOLDING MORE DEAD WEIGHT ABOVE IT. I BELIEVE THIS EXPLAINS THE SHORTER TIME-FRAME BEFORE THE COLLAPSE. (NOTE: IF EXPLOSIVES INDEED WERE USED, THE VILLAN WHO DETONATED THEM COULD HAVE DONE SO AT ANY TIME OF HIS CHOOSING. WHY WOULD HE AROUSE SUSPICION BY MAKING ONE TOWER FALL MUCH SOONER THAN THE OTHER, AND THUS INVITE THE QUESTION YOU ASKED?)

Now let me discuss your so-called fact #2. AGAIN, IT'S NOT A "SO-CALLED" FACT, IT'S A FACT: STEEL DOES INDEED LOOSE ITS STRENGTH AS ITS TEMPERATURE INCREASES. YOUR NOTE AT 2b BELOW AKNOWLEDGES THIS FACT. YOU CAN - AND DO - ARGUE THAT THE TEMPERATURE INCREASE WAS NOT SUFFICIENT TO BRING DOWN THE TOWERS, BUT THE HEATED STEEL CERTAINLY WAS WEAKENED.

2a) Steel is an excellent conductor of heat, so when you apply heat to a steel structure the heat spreads quickly. So the heat from the fires would have spread through the entire steel structure of each tower. The Twin Towers contained 200,000 tons of steel. Are we expected to believe that the fires from two loads of jet fuel provided sufficient heat to raise 200,000 tons of steel to the point where it became critically weak? STEEL DOES INDEED CONDUCT HEAT VERY WELL. AND YES, RESIDUAL HEAT WOULD HAVE SPREAD TO PARTS OF THE STRUCTURE FAR FROM THE FIRE. BUT, THE STEEL COMPONENTS CLOSEST TO THE FIRE WOULD HAVE BEEN FAR HOTTER. IN OTHER WORDS, THE HEAT WOULD NOT BE EVENLY SPREAD. IF YOU HOLD THE FLAME OF A BLOW-TORCH AGAINST A CONTINUOUS RAIL OF A RAIL ROAD TRACK FOR AN HOUR, THE STEEL WOULD BE EXTREMELY HOT AT THE POINT OF CONTACT. IT WOULD ALSO BE TOO HOT TO TOUCH WITHIN MANY FEET OF THIS POINT. THE HEAT WOULD TRAVEL FAR DOWN THE RAIL, BUT A QUARTER MILE OR SO FROM THE FLAME, IT PROBABLY WOULD BE COOL ENOUGH TO TOUCH IT. THIS WOULD BE TRUE FOR TWO REASONS: NOT ALL OF THE ENERGY WOULD TRAVEL DOWN THE RAIL, PLUS - AND THIS IS IMPORTANT - MUCH OF THE HEAT THAT DOES TRAVEL DOWN THE RAIL WILL DISIPATE INTO THE ATMOSPHERE. THIS BRINGS UP ANOTHER IMPORTANT FACT ABOUT THE WTC FAILURE: THE FIREPROOFING WAS SEVERELY DAMAGED IN THE VICINITY OF THE CRASHES. THE EXPOSED STEEL HEATED UP MORE QUICKLY, AND THE HEAT TRAVELED TO PORTIONS OF THE STRUCTURE WHERE THE FIREPROOFING WAS INTACT. THE FIREPROOFING THEN TRAPPED THE HEAT IN THE STEEL, DOING THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT IT WAS SUPPOSED TO DO, CAUSING THE STEEL TO BE WEAKENED MORE THAN WOULD HAVE BEEN THE CASE HAD THE FIREPROOFING BEEN INTACT.

2b) Based on data provided by Corus Construction Centre, and assuming that the WTC architects followed the usual safety margins for load-bearing steel structures, we may conclude that even if the fire had heated the steel to 1022°F (550°C) that would not have been sufficient to cause the towers to collapse. I'M SURE THE WTC ARCHITECTS AND ENGINEERS FOLLOWED SAFETY MARGINS THAT GREATLY EXCEEDED THE USUAL SAFETY MARGINS. THAT'S WHAT WE DO WHEN WE DESIGN ESPECIALLY LARGE STRUCTURES, AND THE TWIN TOWERS WERE THE LARGEST TWO BUILDINGS ON EARTH. I AGREE, THE HEAT - BY ITSELF - WAS NOT SUFFICIENT TO BRING DOWN THE BUILDINGS. OTHER DAMAGE WOULD HAVE BEEN NECESSARY. YOU INSIST THIS DAMAGE WAS CAUSED BY EXPLOSIVES; I MAINTAIN THAT THE MASSIVE DAMAGE DONE BY THE PLANES WAS ALSO TO BLAME.

2c) Kevin Ryan from UL states "We know that the steel components were certified to ASTM E119. The time temperature curves for this standard require the samples to be exposed to temperatures around 2000F for several hours." I CANNOT SPEAK DIRECTLY TO THIS QUOTE, AS I AM NOT AN EXPERT ON ASTM'S PROCEDURES. IF YOU ARE, PLEASE ENLIGHTEN ME. IF YOU ARE NOT, YOU ARE NOT IN A POSITION TO JUDGE THE CREDIBILITY OF MR. RYAN'S STATEMENT. HOWEVER, CONSIDER THIS: UL IS ONE OF MANY PROFESSIONAL AND SCIENTIFIC ORGANIZATIONS THAT AGREES THAT NO EXPLOSIVES WERE USED TO BRING DOWN THE TOWERS. IT'S INTERESTING THAT YOU FOCUS ON THE QUOTE FROM ONE MEMBER OF THIS ORGANIZATION, AND IGNORE ALL THE ORGANIZATION'S RESEARCH. COULD MR. RYAN BE A WHISTLEBLOWER? IT'S POSSIBLE, BUT UNLIKELY. IN ORDER FOR ALL THE OTHER UL EMPLOYEES TO "GO ALONG" WITH THE "OFFICIAL STORY," THERE WOULD HAVE TO BE A MASSIVE MOBILIZATION OF THOUSANDS OF PROFESSIONALS. THEY WOULD ALL HAVE TO BE PAID OFF TO LIE. WOULD NOT ANY OF THESE PROFESSIONALS BLOWN THE WHISTLE ON SUCH A CONSPIRACY? I CERTAINLY THINK SO. UNLESS, OF COURSE, THEY WERE THREATENED WITH DEATH. MR. RYAN SEEMED TO HAVE NO SUCH FEAR. IS HE STILL ALIVE? ALSO, IF ALL THE MEMBERS OF US WERE APPROACHED AND ASKED TO LIE, WOULD NOT MR. RYAN TELL US ABOUT THIS?

2d) The jet fuel burned for maybe ten minutes, and thereafter it was not jet fuel that was burning but rather, as Popular Mechanics' "Fact" says, "the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper". Since both WTC 1 and WTC 2 were still standing 50 minutes after the impacts, the alleged weakening of the steel had to be due to the previous 40 minutes of burning of "rugs, curtains, furniture and paper". YES. THE STEEL WAS WEAKENED BY SUCH FIRES. AND THE STEEL WAS OVERLOADED BY THE DAMAGE FROM THE AIRPLANES.

Now let me discuss your so-called fact #3.

3a) According to the Journal of Australian Fire Investigators (see http://www.tcforensic.com.au/docs/article10.html) paper, wood and leather ignite at 475°F (246°C) or less, far below the temperature required to weaken steel significantly. It is thus ludicrous to attempt to attribute the collapse of the Twin Towers to the weakening of its steel supports due to the combustion of "rugs, curtains, furniture and paper". SEE COMMENT IMMEDIATELY ABOVE.

3b) No steel-beam high-rise had ever before (or since) completely collapsed due to fires! However, such complete and nearly symmetrical collapses in tall steel-frame buildings have occurred many times before -- all of them due to pre-positioned explosives in a procedure called “implosion” or controlled demolition. What a surprise, then, for such an occurrence in downtown Manhattan— three skyscrapers completely collapsed on the same day, September 11, 2001, presumably without the use of explosives. ALL THE IMPLODED BUILDINGS YOU REFER TO WERE IMPLODED FROM THE BOTTOM UP. THE WTC TOWERS FAILED FROM THE TOP DOWN. AS FOR YOUR CORRECT OBSERVATION ABOUT NO OTHER STEEL FRAME BUILDINGS HAVING FAILED FROM FIRES, ALL OF THESE TOWERS HAD ALL THEIR STEEL STRUCTURAL MEMBERS INTACT. ALSO, WTC 1, 2 & 7 HAD UNUSUAL STRUCTURAL DESIGNS. MOST OTHER STEEL-FRAME TOWERS HAVE THEIR LOADS DISTRIBUTED ON A REGULAR GRID OF COLUMNS, WHEN VIEWED IN PLAN. THE TWIN TOWERS, HOWEVER, HAD THEIR FLOORS SUPPORTED BY THE CORE COLUMNS AND THE EXTERIOR WALLS. THE FAILURE OF THE FLOORS IN THE VICINITY OF THE IMPACTS PULLED THE EXTERIOR WALLS INWARD. THIS BOWING OF THE NON-SEVERED COLUMNS CAN BE OBSERVED IN MANY PHOTOGRAPHS. EVENTUALLY, THE DEFORMATION OF THESE COLUMNS WAS TOO SEVERE TO KEEP HOLDING THE WEIGHT THEY WERE DESIGNED TO CARRY. A REGULAR GRID OF INTERNAL COLUMNS MIGHT HAVE PREVENTED THIS FAILURE. AS FOR WTC 7: THE UPPER LEVELS OF THIS TOWER HAD A CONVENTIONAL DESIGN OF A COLUMN GRID. HOWEVER, THE BUILDING WAS BUILT OVER A CON-ED SUBSTATION. SO AS NOT TO DISTURB THIS EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE, WTC7 WAS BUILT WITH THE STRUCTURE IN ITS LOWER LEVELS SPANNING THE SUBSTATION. THIS UNUSUAL DESIGN MEANT THAT THE FAILURE OF ONE STRUCTURAL MEMBER COULD LEAD TO THE COLLAPSE OF THE ENTIRE STRUCTURE. (NOTE: THE BOMBING OF THE ALFRED P. MURAH BUILDING IN OKLAHOMA CITY ON 4/19/1995 HAD A STRUCTURAL FAILURE NOT UNLIKE THIS: THE TRUCK BOMB WAS PLACED NEAR ONE REINFORCED
CONCRETE COLUMN WHICH CARRIED A SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF THE BUILDING'S WEIGHT. THE SUDDEN DISTRUCTION OF THIS COLUMN BROUGHT DOWN A SUBSTANTIAL PORTION OF THE BUILDING. IF IT WAS 47 STORIES TALL, THE ENTIRE BUILDING WOULD HAVE LIKELY COLLAPSED.) IT'S ALSO IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THE LOWER PORTION OF THE TOWER WAS SEVERELY DAMAGED. SEE THIS LINK FOR ANALYSIS AND PHOTOS:

Paul,
To allow more room. I conutined the debate here.
Gary
911truthnc.org
“it is possible to fool all the people all the time—when government and press cooperate.” George Seldes - "legendary investigative reporter"

There are theories all over this site. But as the previous poster suggested, it is the government's job to provide the answers. That's what we pay them for. But I think everyone can agree that some type of explosives were used and that planes cannot create the kind of devastation found at Ground Zero. To me, it is a fact, not a theory. You've got yer "Eyes Wide Shut"

The answers have been provided by many different researchers. You either ignore them or fail to comprehend them. Many ignoramuses believe, against all evidence and logic, that explosives were used, but nobody who knows anything about the subject agrees. Why your uninformed fabrications should trump real science is anybody's guess.

NIST explained the collapse of the WTC comprehensively. You can't find any flaws in the report. You choose to reject it because the science is inconvenient to your politics. Period.

Even NIST doesn't claim it explained the collapse of the two towers comprehensively -- on the contrary, they are admirably candid in their admission that their theory only explains events up until the point of "collapse initiation."

I do not agree that explosives brought down the WTC. Therefore, your belief that "everyone can agree that some type of explosives were used" is incorrect.

The government has provided answers in the Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States. It appears you reject this report because its conclusions are not what you wish them to be. You approached the question with your mind already made up. You reject any and every fact - no matter how strong - that doesn't fit your theory. You embrace every rumor - no matter how flimsy - that does fit the conclusion you so desperately want to be true. As for your statement that it's the government's job to provide answers: Again, the government has done just that with the 9/11 Report. If you insist the 9/11 report is wrong, and the Commission members are committing a cover-up, you're making a very serious charge. That would be a high crime you're accusing the commission members of. The burden off proof would fall on YOU to demonstrate that explosives were used. YOU would have to prove that the commission members were lying. If you insist it's the government's job to prove the commission's innocence, you're saying the government is guilty until proven innocent. YOU would have to engage in some very grueling research, and get a relevant degree in higher education, in order for you to be considered a credible authority on explosives.

Suppose your neighbor's car is vandalized, and suppose your neighbor accuses you of committing the vandalism. Suppose you get hauled into court, and the judge demands you prove your innocence. Suppose you cannot prove your innocence, even though you didn't commit the crime. Suppose you have to go to jail and pay restitution for a crime you did not commit. I don't think you would like that. Fortunately, we don't live in such a society. The legal system holds you, Mandrake, as innocent until proven guilty. It is only fair that you recognize that other people - the 9/11 Commission members included - have this right as well.

You recite your silly, thoroughly debunked canards as though you have something to offer. Empty rhetoric, devoid of facts and contemptuous of actual evidence, is the only product of five years of hysterical screaming by the conspiracy liars.

Nobody has debunked anything in PM--nobody.

The real scientists, engineers, and demolition experts who can tell you exactly what a pyroclastic flow is regard your fantasies as utter rubbish. Why not familiarize yourself with the truth instead of mindlessly parroting the bogus science and uninformed fabrications of ignoramuses?

Dont need to be a structural engineer to tell that explosives HAD to be used in order to bring down all 3 of those buildings.
Just like one doesn't need to be a meteorologist in order to tell which way the wind is blowing.

Some things are just obvious and only require basic common sense.

For instance, common sense dictates that when over 1150 bodies get completely Vaporized, 1700+ others are blown into very tiny fragments (more than 20,000 collected) that fit into Test Tubes, more than 500 tiny Bone Fragments are found on buildings across the street from the WTC.
Only 12 people out of almost 3000 were identifiable without DNA testing and those bodies were outside the buildings.

Now do I need a structural engineer or demolition's expert to tell me that Explosives were used?

Hell No, common sense in this case is clear as a bell.

If the weatherman tells you during his weather report that there is no chance of rain today, yet you look out your window and it is raining, who ya going to believe?

Absurd, absolute phrases like that make it clear you have no idea what you're talking about.

Hypothetically speaking, if there WAS a conspiracy on 9/11, does it not make sense that the Government would enlist the help of elements in the corporate media to make claims that the Government is not in a position to make(i.e. LIES)? Everything in the PM pieces is speculation and unsubstantiated claims, stuff that's to unverifiable (or false) for the Gov. to propagate, forcing them to enlist private entities. It all makes perfect logical sense, and only serves to reinforce the claim that 9/11 was an inside job - anything else would be suspect.

"Debunbking 9/11 Myths" reports where the convergence of evidence has led us for the last 5 years. It is not the object of debunking. The evidence from thousands of pieces of evidence and thousands of eyewitnesses converges on the only conclusion that can be drawn. Trying to draw attention away from the absolute weakeness of your position doesn't work - it's a classic Jon Gold Red Herring.

What you have never been able to do - provide irrefutable evidence that 9/11 was an inside job - is long known. One only has to read the hundreds of posts whereby you dodge having to provide evidence of anything to support your position. You just did it again in full view of us all.

You don't have to read the book. The book is only a report of what you already know is true: you got your butt kicked years ago.

I guess You missed this question I asked you before. Let me ask you this question again. Say you were the commanding officer of the jets that were going to intercept airplanes that are attacking America. You look over the situation and realize you have to send planes to intercept. What would the first question you would ask your ops people. See if it would match mine. I would ask “How long will it take for my jets to get there.” When the ops people say, “Well, it will take 40 minutes traveling at 500 mph.” I don’t think I would say, “Okay”. I would say, “Tell the pilots to go to afterburners and get their asses there as fast as possible.” Ya know what; I think that’s what you would have said the same thing too, right. You do realize that the military jets could have intercepted the airplane if they traveled at max speed, right?

My point is that there is something wrong with fighter pilots travelling at one quarter top speed when their country is under attack. That is easy to understand and seemingly accepted as a fact. This needs to be investigated. I'm sure you agree, right?

It has been thoroughly investigated and you have simply closed your mind to the conclusions reached. The 9/11 Commission Report covers this subject exhaustively. The Popular Mechanics book summarizes what is now known about the factors inhibiting an effective response to the hijackings in its chapter on the stand down myth. Why not familiarize yourself with this material and THEN see if you can formulate any objections. Your questions have answers. It's your job to come to terms with them.

Once again you offer no substance, You offer no evidence, all you do is refer to a flawed website or book. I must tell you that your posts have made me move towards the truthers point of view because they offer substance. You are damaging any chance that I will accept the official version due yto your lack of any substance.

I guess you missed my last question, In the PM online article it states:

“Why couldn't ATC find the hijacked flights? When the hijackers turned off the planes' transponders, which broadcast identifying signals, ATC had to search 4500 identical radar blips crisscrossing some of the country's busiest air corridors.”

How can they use this as an argument? For this to be reasonable, there would to have been no way for a air traffic controller to highlight a suspicious or noteworthy aircraft radar blip. According to the timeline all four of the flights were under suspicion before they lost their transponders. And they wouldn’t have to search through 4500 planes, they would just have to look at the airplane that there is a problem with that is highlighted on their screen. And all they would have to search is around the location of the airplane that lost it’s transponder.

In fact I’ll bet you five bucks that if you ask a air traffic controller, you will find that an airplane that loses it’s transponder will automatically highlight the offending radar blip on their screen. This jumps out as a red flag. Why would they say that they had to search 4500 planes when clearly they did not have to search that many. Not to mention that you mentioned they had a projected path of flight 77.

I've been reading these posts for a bit now and you and pomeroo have not posted a fact about anything. Please, are you interested in getting to the bottom of this or are you just blowing smoke. Your every post makes no sense. I keep listing facts and you just say what else. Any chance you will actually address any point I have raised? Point after point is raised and you ignore them. Your every post decreases your credibility. Help me out here and address the points I raise. Please?

Once again, Not a word on my questions, not one single piece of evidence. You must realize that you are not addressing my points. You know that. You know that you are avoiding my questions. What are you afraid of. I am waiting for some answers and all you have is , , , , nothing. You can't convince anyone of anything unless you actually say something relevant.

What's the phone number of the person that can give me access to the evidence that can prove or disprove explosives. Or were you being less than truthful in your statement?

Every week there's a couple "new" people here saying the same thing. It's obvious some of them are gov agents. They never get very far though, cause their argument is baseless. Better to just ignore them.

It's obvious to you that some visitors here are government agents. The actual probability of a "government agent" (for what agency, one wonders) wasting time here is roughly zero. A bunch of ignorant fantasists endlessly repeating debunked nonsense is not a very high priority for people who work for a living.

What "argument" is baseless? The argument that not a single serious researcher--physicist, structural engineer, demolition expert, avionics tech, metallurgist, etc.--takes this conspiracy nonsense seriously is far from baseless: It's demonstrably true.

Your side has bogus science, distorted quotes, and outright lies. The rationalists have all the facts.

Why are the sites I link to "flimsy"? You and other fantasists are helpless to disprove anything on them.

What does it mean to say that I don't know what I'm talking about? I'm capable of assimilating the material I study, which is vastly more than can be said for most posters here. If the subject is controlled demolitions, I defer to the opinions of people who WORK IN THAT INDUSTRY. You apparently believe that it is to the fantasists' credit that they ignore everything real authorities state and blithely invent new scientific principles. I think that it makes them look like fools.

What is the point of your falsehood about Iraq? No stockpiles of WMD have turned up. Why are you lying about this?

It never occurs to you that there is a reason why not a single air traffic controller takes this conspiracy nonsense seriously. No, a controller looking at a few dozen blips on his screen doesn't have to sort through thousands of blips all over the country. Your notion of an "offending" radar blip is a product of your imagination, however. No such animal exists. The hijackers turned off the transponders to make the planes hard to locate. Given enough time, eventually they could have been found through a process of elimination. No red flags jumped out at anybody on 9/11/01.

The Popular Mechanics stuff debunks itself. Why? Because it exists. That constitutes a recognition that the voluminous official reports are useless, and if those reports are useless, further "explanations" are needed to plug up the huge gaps in the official fairy tale. If the 9/11 Commission report was correct and complete regarding the main narrative, and if the NIST reports provided a full and satisfactory explanation for the collapses of the towers, then there would be absolutely no need for PM to step in and explain anything at all. It's like Microsoft saying that Windows is a solid, reliable operating system, but then having to come up with a new patch every few months.
The question then arises: Why are the official reports useless? Just carelessness? I don't think sooooo...(say that with a rising and falling sardonic voice).

Point 1. How could any hostile aircraft of any kind violate Pentagon arispace?

Point 2. On 9/11/01, with the nation "under attack," why did the Secrect Service not immediately hustle the POTUS to a secret, sanctuary, but rather leave him hung out, security stripped for almost and hour?

Point 3. Why did the administration first aknowledge the "Angle is next" call then deny it? And what about the reference to the launch codes, the call to Putin and the POTUS' movements throughout the rest of 9/11/01...very unusual and never explained in the "official" story.

Nobody can niggle over the technicalities of these points. These are hard edged questions about documented undeniable facts that should be forced upon the personages of this regime at every public appearance, and ultimately when they stand in the dock for treason.

These are points which no 911 Truth denier can obfuscate with phony science or eye witness hysteria. Moreover, blow back cannot explain these events in any way. Each of us must work at being the best advocate for this case we can. We must win over the liberal fence-sitters and undermine the hard core right. Our case must be made sharply and to the point. The fate of the world depends on it. As Tarpley reminds us regularly, 911Truth is the only stake that can pierce the heart of this vampire regime, and time is running out. Stop wasting it with these fools.

I am starting to think pomeroo and jon davies are bots.
Send a command to list their posts and search for facts.
Oops! And I just made a post suggestng we, at the very least, ignore these fools.
Sorry.

These points should be brought up every time the President Speaks in public...... but wait. He always seems to be speaking in front of military or former military personnel.... or in front ot FBI cadets. When will he stand up in front of the citizens and field a few unscripted questions?

Why will he not debate or sit down and talk with the world leaders?.... could it be because they may ask a few pointed questions that Georgie just doesn't have the lies to cover?... Just call these guys terrorists and then you don't have to talk to them. And the last thing the American people will do is question the great Georgie.

In my opinion.... we as Americans desreve exactly what we get because our ignorance has allowed us to become the prey... Prey to whomever stands behind the curtain. We deserve to be led....Led down whichever path that someone else may choose... because being led is easier than knowing how you wish to be led.

and remember.... your government loves you and they would never do anything to harm you or coerce you onto a path that suits their own needs and greeds.

Per your question: "How could any hostile aircraft of any kind violate Pentagon arispace (sic)?"

Answer: The Pentagon, located in Arlington, Virginia, is on the eastern shore of the Potomac River, just upstream from Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport. (Look at any map of the Washington, DC area. It's easy to find the Pentagon: it's shaped like a pentagon. You'll see it's just north/northwest of the airport.) Air traffic to and from this airport regularly flies very close to the Pentagon.

Well, I've heard various things about the Chertoff boys. Chertoff the younger claims that "he doesn't know" but he and Chertoff the elder *might* be cousins. Ma Chertoff has been quoted as saying that "Of course!" they are indeed cousins. It actually might be worth posting a query on a geneology site -- there are people out there who really get off on chasing facts like this down.

It's just a more more expensive, and slightly drawn out version of their wothless magazine article. Heck, the NIST's recent press release was even more worthwhile than PM's garbage (and that's not saying much). The author added a few worthless pages to discuss all the emails he's received since the original article. You're better off reading Bill O'Reilly's new book even.

How do you feel about the fact the masterminds of 9/11, Ali Mohammed, Khalid Shaek Mohammed and Omar Saeed were all intelligence operatives?(Ali Mohammed was protected FBI informant and CIA asset, KSM was ISI, and Omar Saeed was ISI, MI5 and possibly CIA)

Why arent these guys charged with anything? Why is it just Zacharius Moussaoui? Who had nothing to do with anything. You call us 9/11 deniers, "twoofers"...yet you claim 9.11 was just "incompentence"...well who was fired, demoted even? Was covering up the air quality of lower manhattan merely "incompetence"? How about the lies that got us into "Iraq?" But keep using hateful spiteful pejoratives against us...when the full truth, the REAL truth of 9/11 hits the mainstream...it's Cheney apologists like you who are going to be backpeddling.

"Let us not tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories concerning the attacks of September the 11th — malicious lies that attempt to shift the blame away from the terrorists themselves, away from the guilty." 11-10-2001

Any reasonable person admits that the PNAC "new pearl harbor" is pretty much proof. They said they needed it and then they got it. You realize that the beginning of all the US wars in the 20th century was preceded by a false flag event. Why would this one be any different.

Jon, why are you posting on a 9/11 Truth website if you do not suspect the official story to be a fraud?

Why do you demand that every poster here spoon feed you evidence of government complicity? Most people who doubt the official fairy tale do so becuase they have all done their research and due diligence. Frankly, I'm sure many are fed up and exhausted from trying to convince the lazy or reluctant to believe folks like you .

There are numerous books out there from some very brilliant authors, there are numerous papers out there written by some very credible and qualified scholars, there is numerous eyewitness testimony, there are many whistle blowers -- point is, there is a mountain of evidence that when lumped together, without any reasonable doubt concludes government complicity. The case is solid!

So, may I suggest you open your mind and begin to research like the rest of us have already started. Honestly, it wont take you long to come to the same conclusion as the growing millions of doubters have. Jump in! The water's cold I know, but it is everyone's moral duty as world citizens to get to the bottom of this massive hoax.

Bingo. The book is a joke. What these guys don't understand is you can prove inside job without even getting into the Pentagon or the towers. General Ahmad/Pakistani ISI, wargames, Sibel Edmonds, 9/11 Commissioners now saying NORAD lied, timelines switched at least three times, specific international warnings from guys like Putin, specific domestic warnings from guys like Schippers, Colleen Rowley, Frasca shutting down investigations, etc., etc.

So you claim that the 9/11 Truth Movement doesn't have to keep pushing that there MUST have been controlled demolition, that all these Truther's websites are avoiding the issue by focusing on controlled demolition?

So how are you going to reconcile yourself with the 9/11 Truth Movement? Or are you headed for an all battle with the movement since it has yet to come up with any evidence of controlled demolition?

I don't get it? Building seven clearly looks like controlled demolition. That's a fact jack. It may not have been, but it looks like it.

The molten metal flowing out of the tower has not been explained in any reasonable manner. Every video of thermite reactions look like the flowing metal and no video shows alum looking like the flowing metal.

The complete lack of airplane weckage in shanksville is unacceptable, considering that no one can find a photo of an airplane crash that has no wreckage.

The sun looks like it's orbiting the earth. Get off this silly "look like" kick. It's completely illogical when you actually HAVE to have evidence of explosives.

What came out of WTC 2 has not been shown to be molten metal and can never be. It is irrelevent in the face of all the other evidence.

Thermite reactions can be easily be caused by the conditions present at the towers on that day.

And the false claim about Shankesville shows your incredible unwillingness to learn anything about the evidence and the effects of high-speed airplane crashes. And the fact that wreakage was found, including one of the engines 300 yards away shows that you really don't care about truth whatsoever.

It's really amazing that you would get things so wrong and repeat them.

We've been through this before. I said that the evidence of explosives could easily be determined if the evidence was available to the public. You said it was and is at a JKF airport hanger and available to the public. I asked you for a phone number of who can give me access to this evidence, You have not given me that number? All I need is one phone number.

We both know that the evidence is available to prove or disprove explosives. But it is unavailable. It is outragious that your position is "show me the evidence" when the evidence is being covered up by the suspects. You have to be able to see how outragious that is. Please, get real.

The molten metal flowing out of the tower looks exactly like every video I have seen of thermite reactions and there has not been on video that shows that shows alum looking like this. You have to realize that this is reasonable evidence.

Thermite reations could in no way be caused by the amount of rust on the columns. What you see on the video is a sustained concentrated reaction, that in no way could have been caused by the amount of rust on the columns. Please show me one video of molten alum under 1000 degrees in daylight that looks like it. All I need is one. You won't because you can't

Show me one picture ot an airliner crash that looks just slightly similar to Shanksville. All I need is one. I have looked at a tonne of airliner crash photos and not one is similar to Shanksville. Just show me one. You won't because you can't.

Not to mention that there is not one example of steel frame high rise buildings collapsing due to fire and/or impact damage. Just find me one. All I need is one. You won't because you can't.

About you giving me a phone number that will give me access to the evidence that can prove or disprove explosives, all I need is one phone number. You won't because you can't.

Every post you make tends to make me buy into the truthers positions because you never bring it. You only ignore the questions and go off on some obtuse rant.

Why won't you address the points I raise? Why do you just go off on a unreasonable tangent? You make no sense to any reasonable person. You are doing a great disservice to anyone that supports the official theory, because anyone that reads your posts will reject your unreasonable posts. Stop and think for a bit that you are in fact helping the truthers by your lack of evidence and attitude of not addressing questions.

Wait a minute - -maybe that's it. You are really a truther and you come here to show new readers how absurd the official theory is. Is that it? - - -lol - - - if that's it let me know and I will play along with your crazy posts. Wow, why didn't I realize this before, it's so obvious. If this is the case, I just want you to know you are doing a great job. You and pomeroo have made me buy into the truthers side of the argument more than anything else on this site. Amazing.

that if think your attacks on the well-meaning people on this site are going to somehow divert the real truthers, you are wasting your time. If you're doing it for personal entertainment, keep it up, because I enjoy a good show and Jon Gold is a formidable opponent. But I'd really hate to see you waste your time here as a shill. I can only deduce, from the tone of your posts (& pomeroo's), that is indeed what you are. I ran across your kind during the 2004 Democratic primaries so I knows 'em when I sees 'em.

Jon, Buddy! For once you actually found an error in something I wrote!!! Granted, it was only a typo, but nevertheless, you were finally able to point out a specific mistake I made!!! Too bad you also made a typo of your own in your response, but nobody's perfect.

Why do these shills always have to have people tell them how to think. The way they cite PM is straight out of 1984. Their posts are filled with only personal slander and what other people tell them to think. I have yet to see a post from one of these people that shows they've thought for themselves or isn't filled with slanderous attacks. If they think people coming here are going to take that approach as serious I think they are mistaken, they stick out like a sore thumb.

Those interested in facts have cited those facts for almost 5 years. You've never in all this time been able to debunk them. Now you engage in a Red Herring to attack a book that cites those same facts that have bamboozled you.

Attacking the PM book only shows how desperate you are to avoid the fact you have never been able to prove your case. Everyone in the real world sees that. Why are you all so blind to it, primate?

You have not presented a single rebuttal to my points. How can you take a position and not attempt to show evidence. It's not going to be long before I will have to believe that you are not interested in the truth and are just blowing smoke. Give me some help here.

I was moved to comment when you said "the truth we presented". If you're talking about in the comments after this specific post what truth have you presented?

"You really help the demise of your "movement" even more, Jon."

Not truth...just a slight insult.

"Getting his butt whupped every day does require stamina. He doesn't have anything else to offer us. When cornered to provide answers and evidence, he just whines in anticipation of the next truth to come around and whupp his sorry butt."

Insult again.

"Poor Jon. Cornered again."

Noticing a pattern?

"Why do Wonder Truthers always desperately avoid providing any answers to your own questions? Or any evidence from any expert that makes your questions even valid?"

But you're doing the same thing that you have claimed 'wonder truthers' are doing. People ask YOU questions and all you do is reply with insults and claims they aren't presenting evidence. And YOU are?!

You deride people for stating questions as if they were evidence. Maybe if the 9/11 commission had lived up to its purpose there wouldn't be so many unanswered questions and so many people asking them. If the commission had done it's job right then there wouldn't be any need for a book based on a magazine article to plug gaps in its story.

You deride people for not having any "physical evidence". Is this the same physical evidence that was whisked away and melted down? When a person is murdered police officers do not whisk away evidence and sell it off at a second hand shop. It is filed and investigated. When the fundamental aspects of criminal investigation are NOT followed the people of the world have a right to know WHY. They have a right to ask questions of their government.

In the comments section of this post you have NOT made any rebuttals or answered any points/questions given to you by the posters here. All you have done is insult, bully and claim your beliefs are paramount and that everyone else is an idiot. Is it that scary for you to think outside of something thats spoonfed to you that it makes you an ass and a bully?

I admit I was a "boobus" American.
Just part of the process to get to the truth.

Now I'm an informed American, thanks to guys like Gold.

Trolls like you are of the sort that believed this president about his WMD claims, only to revise their beliefs when even the govt admitted there were none. Have faith, Mr. Davies. One day you'll be on board with us, you just need to wrap the truth around yourself in a fashion that isn't such an epiphany.

The following radio interview of Popular Mechanics' writer researcher article, "Debunking 9/11 Myths: Why Conspiracy Theories Can't Stand Up to the Facts", clearly shows that he
couldn't provide the facts he claims to have. Jon your article is weak but the facts in this interview will surely strenghten your thesis.
To listen, go on this site, well worth your time.http://www.v911t.org/M/Pop%20Mech%20-%20Goyette.mp3

about being in a tiger cage for five years. I mean honestly. Do you go through something like that for your country and then turn around and become a corrupt politician serving the likes of Charles Keating? Just too weird. Since we now know that 9/11 was faked--what else has been faked? McCain's record? Is that why he doesn't go after Bush for HIS record? Hmmmm.... HMMMMMM.... It just keeps getting more interesting.

The question of whether the fires provided sufficient explanation for the collapse of the Twin Towers was addressed by several people soon after the event, and it was shown that this was not a sufficient explanation, but Popular Mechanics ignored these analyses (if it was ever aware of them). For example, over three years ago, on 2001-11-25 Carol Valentine published J. McMichael's Muslims Suspend Laws of Physics (also available on this website: Part I and Part II). Popular Mechanics' "experts" were apparently unaware of the points to which J. McMichael drew attention (or perhaps they were aware but Popular Mechanics chose to ignore things like this):

The fires in the Twin Towers were not raging infernos. They gave off lots of black, sooty smoke, indicating an oxygen-poor fire. Oxygen-poor fires do not produce high temperatures.

The Boeings which allegedly hit the Twin Towers had both taken off with enough fuel for a transcontinental flight, but most of the jet fuel in the South Tower impact was consumed in the spectacular fireball, so presumably much more fuel was available for the fire in the North Tower. If the fires were the cause of the collapse then we would expect the North Tower to have collapsed more quickly than the South Tower. But the opposite happened: the North Tower collapsed 104 minutes after impact whereas the South Tower collapsed after only 56 minutes.

Steel is an excellent conductor of heat, so when you apply heat to a steel structure the heat spreads quickly. So the heat from the fires would have spread through the entire steel structure of each tower. The Twin Towers contained 200,000 tons of steel. Are we expected to believe that the fires from two loads of jet fuel provided sufficient heat to raise 200,000 tons of steel to the point where it became critically weak?

Based on data provided by Corus Construction Centre, and assuming that the WTC architects followed the usual safety margins for load-bearing steel structures, we may conclude that even if the fire had heated the steel to 1022°F (550°C) that would not have been sufficient to cause the towers to collapse.

Fire tests in open sided car parks in four countries revealed that the maximum temperature reached was 680°F (360°C), far below that needed to cause steel to weaken significantly.

However we do not have to establish exactly what temperature was reached, or could have been reached, by the burning jet fuel, since Dr. Shyam Sunder, Chief of the NIST Materials and Construction Systems Division, has stated:

Now, several of you have heard about or thought about the fact that the jet fuel would have
burned, caused the building to burn, and probably think the jet fuel played the sole role in the
fires. The jet fuel acted much like a matchstick. It was something that spread throughout the
building in those affected floors and caused ignition of the fires. But the jet fuel itself burnt in a
matter of minutes, within less than ten minutes. So what burned over the next hour, or hour and
a half, was really the contents of the buildings, the everyday contents of the buildings.  Transcript of NIST Public Meeting in New York City  February 12, 2004 (381 Kb PDF file)

So the jet fuel burned for maybe ten minutes, and thereafter it was not jet fuel that was burning but rather, as Popular Mechanics' "Fact" says, "the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper". Since both WTC 1 and WTC 2 were still standing 50 minutes after the impacts, the alleged weakening of the steel had to be due to the previous 40 minutes of burning of "rugs, curtains, furniture and paper". Popular Mechanics states (erroneously, and completely ignoring the safety margins that architects use when designing buildings) that "Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F". So we are expected to believe that burning "rugs, curtains, furniture and paper" can produce temperatures of 1100°F. But according to the Journal of Australian Fire Investigators (see http://www.tcforensic.com.au/docs/article10.html) paper, wood and leather ignite at 475°F (246°C) or less, far below the temperature required to weaken steel significantly. It is thus ludicrous to attempt to attribute the collapse of the Twin Towers to the weakening of its steel supports due to the combustion of "rugs, curtains, furniture and paper".

An interesting message was sent by Kevin Ryan (site manager of the Environmental Health Laboratories, owned by Underwriters Laboratories, the company who certified the steel used in the Twin Towers) to NIST regarding the temperature reached by the burning jet fuel, stating that

The results of your recently published metallurgical tests seem to clear things up ... Your comments suggest that the steel was probably exposed to temperatures of only about 500F (250C), which is what one might expect from a thermodynamic analysis of the situation.

However the summary of the new NIST report seems to ignore your findings, as it suggests that these low temperatures caused exposed bits of the building's steel core to "soften and buckle." Additionally this summary states that the perimeter columns softened, yet your findings make clear that "most perimeter panels (157 of 160) saw no temperature above 250C." ... If steel from those buildings did soften or melt, I'm sure we can all agree that this was certainly not due to jet fuel fires of any kind, let alone the briefly burning fires in those towers.

911truthnc.org
"In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot." Mark Twain

And for those that look at 500'F and say "well that sounds hot enough", just
remember that when you put your oven on self cleaning it heats up to 500'F
for approximately 1 hour. When it's done your oven is nice and clean - ready
for that nice apple pie, NOT a melted (or softened) pile of metal!

beautifully illustrated in 911 Mysteries: Demolition with the kerosene heater that burned at something like 1200 degrees. It is an excellent point. The damage to the towers is the evidence. Planes and jet fuel simply cannot produce this level of destruction. It is unmanipulated visual evidence and it is powerful. There is not a scientist in the world that can make me doubt by own eyes.

the fires at any part of any of the 3 buildings attained 1100 degrees F and certainly not that hot over an entire floor.
The fires burned rather cool as can be proven from the copious amounts of black smoke coming from them, the sprinkler system had most of it put out or at least controlled somewhat.

But no matter what, even IF the "Fires" themselves got to 2000 degrees for a few minutes (which they didn't) the steel sure as hell never got heated remotely that hot because it would take complete exposure over the entire floor and burning for several hours in order to get the steel hot enough to damage it.

Back in 1975 one of the towers burned 3 floors for over 3 hours (this is why sprinklers were put in) and virtually zero structural damage was done to the steel itself.

There is no possible way that the cool burning fires of which never touched more than 60% of one floor and the other few floors affected were less than 25% touched by flame, damaged the massive steel columns in these buildings to the point to where they just totally collapsed to the ground.

That is IMPOSSIBLE, then add in the fact that no high rise steel structured building has EVER collapsed due to fire, and that it is 100% IMPOSSIBLE for them to have collapsed at virtually freefall speed.

Vincent Dunn, a retired New York fire chief and author of The Collapse Of Burning
Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety, says the following:

"I have never seen melted steel in a building fire, but I've seen a lot of twisted, warped,
bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but
when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."

NIST reports that the fires reached 1832°F. While not enough to melt steel (2750°F), it
was hot enough to lower the structural strength of the steel to the point where the WTC
Collapsed. Senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel
Construction noted the following: Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F

Not only that, but the furniture and loads of flammable material also increased the
temperature and made the fires more widespread. Carbon-based materials and plastics
have a high heat release, according to Glenn Corbett, an assistant professor of fire
science, a fire safety engineer, and the technical editor of the Firehouse magazine. He
also believes that the fires in the towers brought down in his brief interview on Penn and
Teller's Bullshit!

* black smoke is not an indication of an oxygen-starved fire. You telling me the oil fires in Kuwait were oxygen starved? With a giant hole the building and higher winds at higher altitude, I'm pretty sure oxygen was getting to the fires

* The South tower was struck at a lower point than the North tower - thus the weakened supports were holding up more weight and thus failed sooner. Duh!

* The collapse started at the points of jet impact. In other words THE FIRE DIDN'T HAVE TO GET ALL 200,000 TONS OF STEEL TO WEAKEN IN ORDER FOR STRUCTURAL FAILURE. It only had to weaken the steel enough at the location of damage.

* Steel loses 50% strength at 600C. What do you think happens to structural supports that lose 50%+ strength while holding up hundreds of thousands of tons? Right - they fail.

* Fire tests in open sided car parks? Wow can't argue with that.

There's a reason why you twoofers STILL don't have any structural engineers on your side. You're full of it.

Comparing an oil well fire to an office furniture fire is comparing apples to oranges.

* Weak argument. Explaining the failure of the steel in a localized area. Does not explain complete failure of the 47 steel columns. There was nothing left standing. A progressive pancake collapse would have left the center colums standing. Come on, didn't you take high school physics. Duh.

* Kevin Ryan from UL states conclusively the steel in the WTC was certified to withstand temperatures of 2000F for several hours.

* The collapse DID NOT start at the point of impact!

You need better arguments dude. You can't even address questions you consider stupid. What does that make you? A genius by your logic.

911truthnc.org
"In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot." Mark Twain

After working 27 years in the construction industry, I can state without a doubt, that the photographs contained within the link below, are not representative of the results from a gravitationally induced collapse, nor the expected debris pile from said collapse.
I'd bet my life on it.

Far be it from me to quibble with established authority figures, but could somebody please reconcile the following contradictory analyses for me? The first one is a NIST statement denying the pancake hypothesis for WTC collapse, while the second is a quote from this Popular Mechanics book, asserting it.

What's up with that?

National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster

Answers to Frequently Asked Questions

[... snip ...]
NIST's findings do not support the "pancake theory" of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system--that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns--consisted of a grid of steel "trusses" integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram below). Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon.
[... snip ...]

Popular Mechanics 'Debunking 9/11 Myths', p. 44:
[... snip ...]
"Once each tower began to collapse, the weight of all the floors above the collapsed zone bore down with pulverizing force on the highest intact floor. Unable to absorb the massive energy, the floor failed, transmitting the forces to the floor below, allowing the collapse to progress downward through the building in a chain reaction. Engineers call the process pancaking
[... snip ...]

The reason for WTC collapse is the central issue of 9/11. Cannot have it both ways.

Either:

(a) NIST is correct - and the supposed "meticulous and scientific analysis" of Popular Mechanics is flat wrong, and then - after all their pomposity about how careful and thorough they are in their "debunking" of the myths - what else that they say can we trust?

or:

(b) Popular Mechanics is correct - and NIST, after 3 years of work, umpteen zillion dollars, hundreds of experts, thousands of simulations, is wrong on the central issue of their work? Is that possible?

or:

(c) Neither is correct - as both sets of baffled "experts" desperately grasp at fig leaves to hide the fact that perhaps nobody really has any good idea how the Towers fell.

"What does it say that people like "pomeroo" need to refer to a book other than the 9/11 Commission's report to "debunk" the 9/11 Truth Movement?"

It says that rational people will consider more than one source. The specific purpose of the PM book is to answer the questions raised by the 9/11 conspiracy theorist. Why are you shocked that people cite it in arguments? And how does that diminish PM's credibility?

Some of the things I read in these conspiracy theorist forums are so obviously illogical that it almost makes me think there really is a conspiracy. You guys come up with such asinine and irrelevant arguments that you must all be CIA plants, paid to make the "truth" movement look hopelessly inept.

Seriously, not one bit of Mr. Gold's blog post was remotely logical and yet it drew scores of comments from slobbering CT sheep. How can not a single one of you see the fallacies Mr. Gold presented?

"Admittedly, I have never read Popular Mechanics' book. Wait a second. What's Jon pulling? How can he debunk a book without even reading it?"

Apparently you can't, Mr. Gold! Looks like you have the "ask questions" part down. Now find your own damn answers.

I don't have any objection to asking serious (Serious!) questions about 9/11. But this "inside job" nonsense is just distracting attention from the real failings of the administration(s) leading up to the attacks. There is simply no evidence of it. As many problems as you bring up with the official story, it's still a thousand times better supported than the, "Hijacker/Demolition/Missile/Secret NASA facility" conspiracy theory.

It sickens me that so many people should be misled by a few media whores. The leaders of your movement don't care about the truth. They just want the celebrity; and they don't mind slandering the thousands of mainstream scientists who disagree with them to get it.

Have fun flaming CT sheep, I won't be coming back to this intellectual cesspool.

a bit of background for the sheeple still buying the 9/11 commission report...

In the fall of 2002, the "National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States" was established, partly in response to pressure from families of victims of the 9/11/01 attack. Originally, President Bush appointed Henry Kissinger, famous for his role in cover-ups and widely considered a war criminal, as chairman of the Commission. However, Kissinger soon stepped down in order to avoid answering questions about potential conflicts of interest, which would have required him to disclose secret clients. Kissinger was replaced by former New Jersey governor Thomas Kean, and Lee H. Hamilton was selected as the vice chair. Thereafter the body became commonly known as the "Kean Commission" or the "9/11 Commission". 1 Â 2 Â

Senator Max Cleland, who initially served on the Commission, was the only outspoken member. He compared the Kean Commission to the Warren Commission:

The Warren Commission blew it. I'm not going to be part of that. I'm not going to be part of looking at information only partially. I'm not going to be part of just coming to quick conclusions. I'm not going to be part of political pressure to do this or not do that. 3 Â

In November of 2003, President Bush appointed Cleland to a position on the board of the Export-Import Bank, prompting him to step down from the Commission. 4 Â He was replaced by probable war criminal Bob Kerrey. As of May, 2004, the Commission consisted of the following members:

Thomas Kean (chair) director of oil giant Amerada Hess. business ties to Saudis Khalid bin Mahfouz. co-chairman of Homeland Security Project. CFR member.
Lee H. Hamilton (vice chair) member of Homeland Security Advisory Council. former chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee and House Select Intelligence Committee. chair of committee investigating Iran/Contra. CFR member.
Richard Ben-Veniste partner in the Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw law firm which represented Westfield Corporation and Westfield America -- insurance beneficiaries of the court-ordered multi-billion dollar payout for the World Trade Center destruction. 5 Â
Bob Kerrey vice-chair of the Senate Committee on Intelligence. Kerrey said in a 1999 Washington Post column that the Vietnam war (which killed over 2 million civilians) was a "just war."
Fred F. Fielding worked for John Dean as White House counsel to Nixon -- "Deep Throat" of Watergate fame, avoided prison time.
Jamie S. Gorelick current and former partner, along with Commission General Counsel Daniel Marcus, of Wilmer, Cutler and Pickering, a law firm representing Prince Mohammed al Faisal against the August 2002 lawsuit by victims' families against several Saudi princes and banks, and the Sudanese government. vice-chair of mortgage giant Fannie Mae. Former deputy to Janet Reno. CFR member.
Slade Gorton served two years on the Senate Intelligence Committee.
John F. Lehman former Secretary of the Navy under Reagan. disgraced in a number of scandals, including Tailhook.
Timothy J. Roemer member of the House Intelligence Committee.
James R. Thompson chairman of the large Chicago-based law firm Winston and Strawn, whose clients have included American Airlines, Boeing, and a number of WTC tenants.
Philip Zelikow member of George W. Bush's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board; member of Bush-Cheney transition team.

Philip Zelikow: Calling the Shots
Chairs Kean and Hamilton served as the public face of the Commission. Their conflicts of interest should be concern enough, but the real work of the Commission was in the hands of Philip Zelikow, a fact documented by David Ray Griffin, in his book devoted to exposing biases, omissions, and distortions in the Commission: The 9/11 Commission Report; Omissions and Distortions.

... as executive director, Zelikow was in charge of the Commission's staff, and it was these staff members -- not the Commissioners we saw on television -- who did most of the actual work of the Commission. The Commissioners would have carried out their own distinctive work -- their discussions and interviews -- on the basis of the material provided by the staff. Kean and Hamilton refer to this fact in their statement that the "professional staff, headed by Philip Zelikow, ... conducted the exacting investigative work upon which the Commission has built" (xvi-xvii). 6 Â

Griffin enumerates some of Zelikow's many connections to the Bush White House:

Member of the National Security Council of the Bush I administration
Aid to National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft under Bush I
Co-Author of book with Condoleezza Rice, National Security Advisor for Bush II
Director of Aspen Strategy Group, to which Rice, Scowcroft, Dick Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz belonged
Member of Clinton to Bush II transition team
Member of Bush II's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, until being appointed to 9/11 Commission

Because of the determinative role of Philip Zelikow in the Commission's work, Griffin dubbed the Commission's final report the "Kean-Zelikow Report."

The Final Report
On July 22, 2004, the Commission published its final report, the 9/11 Commission Report, of which we provide a local mirror to remedy deficiencies in the format of the report published on the Commission's website. The Commission closed on August 21, 2004.

The "Omission Commission"
The 9/11 Commission has earned the designation of the "Omission Commission" due to its refusal to even consider the vast body of evidence contradicting the official narrative of the attack. For example, the Commission decided not to hear from any of the fire fighters who witnessed the destruction of the World Trade Center. 7 Â (The body of oral history testimony from the FDNY and EMS personnel remained suppressed until after the Commission had closed the doors.) The agenda of the Commission to rubber-stamp the official story, evident in the conduct of its hearings, became crystal-clear with the publication of its final report. Our critique of the Report shows that it has some outright lies and contradictions, but its principal method for avoiding troublesome facts is through omission. In essence the Commission performs the magician's sleight of hand -- diverting attention from the many red flags in the official story by weaving a detailed narrative about the alleged hijackers, terror networks, and breakdowns in systems that were supposed to deal with the threat.

That is why they are here. I can assure you, "kisses and hugs" that I am no sheep nor do I follow media whores. That is precisely why I am here. All movements have their weird and rogue elements. I think most of the people who show up here are intelligent enough to be aware of that and sort out the truth for themselves. I have a GREAT 44 year-old bullshit detector and since I have been visiting this site, the only time it goes off is when people like you start lobbing criticisms coupled with personal attacks and tired old insult-speak recycled from Republican talking points.

Victor F. Ganzi is on the board of directors of The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University (CASA), alongside Columba Bush, wife of Jeb Bush, Governor of Florida, brother of George W. Bush, President of the USA and son of George H.W. Bush, former DG of the CIA. http://www.nationalfamilies.org/prevention/casa.html

Victor F. Ganzi is a member of B.E.N.S. - "Business Executives for National Security" http://www.bens.org/what_threats_intel.html#intel - wherein we learn that "When it came time to evaluate In-Q-Tel, the CIA's innovative technology development enterprise, Congress turned to BENS"

In-Q-Tel? It is described as "A new partnership between the CIA and the 'private sector' [my apostrophes].", making it a classic front for traditional fascism and other American-style old-fashioned family values. http://www.in-q-tel.org/

"A bunch of ignorant fantasists endlessly repeating debunked nonsense is not a very high priority for people who work for a living."

pomeroo - 9/27/06

Given the fact that "pomeroo" spends so much time endlessly debunking conspiracy nonsense on this blog, I suppose it is only fair to assume that he does not work for a living. After all, he himself stated that spending time on a 911 conspiracy site "...is not a very high priority priority for people who work for a living." Maybe he should start to look for a job, instead of spending so much time on this site "debunking" us conspiracy theorists. (By the way, I am still waiting to read something by him that actually refutes something. Tired rhetoric and endless circular reasoning does not pass muster.)

1. I am on this site and I am gainfully employed, full-time;
2. He certainly DOES go round and round. The style of his posts are so reminiscent of a coupla bloggers I encountered in my blogging days of the 2004 primaries. I wonder if it's the same guy. (JK, but he's reading from the same playbook, I can smell it). I'm willing to bet he DOES have a full-time job as a paid political shill.

I shouldn't have accused xoxo of using Republican talking points & tactics (although a couple other "detractors" here are doing that). I shot my mouth off without thoroughly reading his/her post. I can see where xo is coming from in that Gold did not debunk the PM report in his blog. I can see how, if you are new to the site, you could get the wrong impression and storm off mad as he/she did (I guess, although, I personally would not have judged this whole site by that one blog post). I've got to get control of myself! Think I was just tired of some of these folks picking on Jon Gold and reacted. <>

Don't You Have Some Immoral Wars To Go Support? The people obsessed with "trying to debunk 9/11 Theories" don't try and apply that SAME logic to "debunking" the lies that got us into Iraq...and I can tell you. that's because these asswipes don't like anything that takes the support away from their own support of imperialist wars of aggressions. Don't buy it when a debunker ass claims he actually doesnt like the wars or Bush...the ultra perjorative ad hominems and disgustingly hateful dialogue and tone they use is indicative of the want for the "arab world to be turned into a parking lot".

The "debunkers" think there is no unanswered questions, no coverup, no funny business...the government told the whole truth about 9/11...whose in denial?

And no, "demolition" idoesnt have to be proven...the fact that Pakistani ISI funded and controlled the hijackers with tacit backing from US and Saudi officials, as US officials made all too certain the hijackers could roam around and not be stopped...IS the smoking gun.

Your fear of Islamo-fascism is well grounded, however instead of hiding under an umbrella of lies and half-truths perhaps you should allow your mind to see what your heart believes. Millions of Islamo-fascists all over the world want nothing more than to sacrifice you to their cult of death. It truly is sad that they will have to successfully strike us again before many of you will even begin to allow yourselves to contemplate the actual reality of the situation.

2 British special forces operatives were jailed in Iraq while driving around in a car bomb - ignition destination unknown. One of their cohort tank squadrons literally broke down the jail to free them before they talked. Special forces are already operating in Iran and rumors are swarming of another 9/11-scope event to set the pretext to open that theatre.

The US/UK madmen over-lording these ops are literally capable of anything. They must be stopped and their most powerfully manipulative weapon, false flag terror, must be, as Tarpley puts it, "broken before their faces and made impotent." We must do this before they start WWIII.

Please stop playing footsie with these idiotic propeller-head fools and start making the case for arresting and trying the architects of this madness.

OK, It's a bit of fun....but maybe it is time to just rid the site of the intellectually handicapped shit -stirrers like pomeroo and jon davies and get on with proper discussion of the issues. At least stop replying to their inane and obviously ill informed ad hominem dribble, and hope that others with more evidence based might shine a more usefully critical light upon some of the less likely to have occurred claims made by some over exuberant truthers. It is in our own best interests to concentrate our discussions on the issues for which there is at least some possibility of being verified in a grand jury, or in impeachment hearings. If we wait for the results of obviously neccesary new investigations it might just be too late.

I am curious about these controversies. I just found out at Conspiracy Smasher that pomeroo was banned. He asked questions that nobody answered. He gave references for his opinions. It seems cowardly to run away from hard questions. He says you have no answers and you proved his point. Where's the beef?

I've been reading lots of different threads here and pomeroo gets called far worse names than he calls other people. Basically, he just calls you all ignorant. You don't seem to have any facts to back up your opinions. I went to the 911 myths site and I was very impressed. Pomeroo keeps saying that you can't disprove anything there. I don't see you proving him wrong.

Maybe he doesn't want to debate you because he lets his work speak for itself. If you only call names and have no facts, what kind of a debate can there be? I never see you actually disproving anything. It's just one lie after another.

his account was locked once he finally went too far down the line of insulting anyone and everyone on the site. obviously he wasn't removed for just his opinion being that he was here posting quite a bit for a good number of days before he was banned.

i'm completely open to anyone of any perspective here to discuss things, and i dont care if you even get along, but allowing someone who has no intention of real discussion (or even providing any content or links, etc.) and instead only focusing on antagonizing and attacking others is not something i am going to let happen.

if he wants back on the site all he has to do is email me, it works the same for anyone.

In your 9/26/2006 blog entry, you admit you have not read Pouplar Mechanics' "Debunking 9/11 Myths: Why Conspiracy Theories Can't Stand Up to the Facts." Later, you quote 9/11 family member Donna Marsh O'Connor, who says, in part, "We have questions. We demand answers." Well, the Popular Mechanics book provides answers. If the answers provided in the book are wrong, I would like very much to see specific reasons why I should reject the conclusions presented in the book.

It's interesting that you claim you're demanding answers to your questions -- Yet when a book of answers is published, you denounce the book without reading it. I suspect you refuse to read the book because you fear your views are so weak they cannot stand up to the scrutiny of serious, educated researchers. If you have no such fear, prove me wrong: Read the book. Read it with an open mind. If you truly have an open mind, as I do, you will accept that your views may chagnge when presented with facts and arguments that you have not previously considered. If you read it with an open mind, and still belive the 9/11 attacks were committed -- or allowed to happen -- by the US government, you should write a serious rebuttal to the book, complete with counterpoints to Popular Mechanics' conslusions.

Yes, I have heard of Yellow Journalism. Your comment concerning the owner of Popular Mechanics is an example of attacking an arguer instead of the argument.

If someone I don't like publishes a book that says "Two plus two makes four," and I say "The publisher is bad, so don't believe anything he says about arithmatic," that would be an example of attacking a person rather than a person's argument. As you can see by this example, one must refute specific points raised by an arguer in order to successfully win a debate.

Thank you for your response. I have in fact addressed many of the points you raise, and your responses have been consistently weak or nonexistent. Your most recent request that I address EVERY point you make, before you consider responding, is a thinly-disguised effort by you to avoid responding to my comments. I see you're leaving yourself an out: you wrote "maybe" you'll respond. So you're saying you won't necessarily write back no matter what I write.

The most important facts to consider concerning your views on the PM book are: 1) You claim the book is debunked, and 2) you admit you have not read the book. When I pointed out this glaring inconsistency to you, you responded that there are questions the book has not addressed. So, you seem to be claiming the whole book is incorrect because it is, in your view, incomplete. Hmm... Does this mean I cannot trust a map of the eastern US because the western part of the country is not shown on the map? If you say such a map is bunk, and you admit you have not looked at the map, and I ask you to point out a single problem with any of the states depicted, you would probably respond: "The map omits California! It omits Wyoming! It omits Colorado! The map of the eastern US is debunked!!!" Such a hypothetical response includes not one single refutal, nor raises any questions about any information presented on such a map. This is analogous to the responses I receive from you concerning my comments on the PM book.

In your article, you did in fact state that you have not read PM book. You also claim that the book is debunked. I certainly have addressed your article. You certainly are welcome to refute any point I raise. Your refusal to do so, I believe, is because you know you are unable to do so.

Again, please at least answer the following question: Do you refuse to read the PM book because you believe doing so would be a waste of your time? Please answer the question yes or no. That should be easy enough. I realize you are likely not sophisticated enough to respond to the logical or technical points I raise. But, it should be easy for you to answer a yes/no question.

. . . That's not all you wrote. It certainly is a significant point, though. You can't take seriously someone who trashes a book, and admits to never reading that book.

Is that the only point you've made that I've addressed? It's disingenious for you to pretend that's the only point in your article that I've responded to. I've written a considerable amount of technical infomation elsewhere in this blog in response to other material in your article. I've demonstrated that explosives were not necessary to bring down burning towers that sustained severe structural damage. You cited an article that said it's "common sense" to believe explosives were used. I refuted this point in detail. So you see? I've responded to many things in your article. I'll ask you once again: Are there any errors in anything I've written about building design and construction? If I have, I certainly want to know. I want my buildings to be as safe as possible.

I'll also ask you a question I've asked many times before: Do you refuse to read the PM book becuase you're so convinced it's wrong, you feel it would be a waste of your time? Please answer the question yes or no.

As I wrote earlier, you are like the men in Galileo's day who refused to look through his telescope to see for themselves wheter Jupiter had moons. They said Jupiter has no moons. Period. No need to look through Galileo's instrument. My analogy is perfect: I am comparing a 21st-century man who is so convinced his position is right that he refuses to even look at evidence supporting another position, to 17th-century men who were so convinced their position was right that they refused to even look at evidence supporting another position.

Best regards,
Paul J. A., AIA, Architect

P.S.: For the umpeenth time, please answer the following question yes or no: Do you refuse to read the PM book because you're so convinced it's wrong you feel it would be a wast of your time? Answering a simple yes/no question should not be hard.

"That's not all you wrote. It certainly is a significant point, though. You can't take seriously someone who trashes a book, and admits to never reading that book."

If you actually read what I wrote, you would see that I made the point that the very fact that people like you can't rely on the 9/11 Commission for their answers, and instead, have to rely on a book like Popular Mechanic's, shows that the 9/11 Report itself, is worthless. The questions were posed to the Government, and the Government should answer, not the Hearst Yellow Press.

"Is that the only point you've made that I've addressed? It's disingenious for you to pretend that's the only point in your article that I've responded to. I've written a considerable amount of technical infomation elsewhere in this blog in response to other material in your article. I've demonstrated that explosives were not necessary to bring down burning towers that sustained severe structural damage. You cited an article that said it's "common sense" to believe explosives were used. I refuted this point in detail. So you see? I've responded to many things in your article. I'll ask you once again: Are there any errors in anything I've written about building design and construction? If I have, I certainly want to know. I want my buildings to be as safe as possible."

I cited an article that Ronald "Pomeroo" Wieck posted in, and I did so specifically for his quotes. The content of the article was not important.

And actually, the quote said, "Though my science background is limited, common sense tells me that these scientific arguments are legitimate criticisms of the official theory of the collapse of the three buildings."

He said it was "common sense" that they were "legitimate criticisms". He didn't say it was "common sense to believe explosives were used."

"I'll also ask you a question I've asked many times before: Do you refuse to read the PM book becuase you're so convinced it's wrong, you feel it would be a waste of your time? Please answer the question yes or no."

As I explained to you. It is not Popular Mechanic's responsibility to answer questions posed to this Government.

Now, why don't you address the other issues I raised?

"It occurred to me after reading his responses that it wasn't Popular Mechanics that the family members lobbied to investigate the attacks of 9/11. It wasn't Popular Mechanics that turned away whistleblowers with pertinent information regarding the attacks of 9/11. It wasn't Popular Mechanics that was mandated to give a "full and complete accounting" of the attacks of 9/11. It wasn't Popular Mechanics that was recently called "Derelict in its' duties."

It was the 9/11 Commission. So tell me why Popular Mechanics' book should be promoted in place of the 9/11 Report, and why Americans shouldn't be FURIOUS and DEMAND a new investigation.
___________________________________

Your stating that the PM article is silent on certain items, is not the same as refuting specific items PM does address. It would be like you saying "the earth rotates on its axis", and me replying "Jon has not explained why we cannot feel the earth turning, so nothing he says about planetary motion can be taken serously."

Moreover, you still have not explained why you decline to read the book. Why not read it? You remind me of Galileo's detractors. With his telescope, Galileo observed mountains on the Earth's Moon, and four moons orbiting Jupiter. His detractors said these things certainly did not exist. When Galileo invited them to look through his telescope, and see for themselves, they declined. Why?

I suppose you might tell me you don't want to read the book because you're so confident it's wrong, you see no point in wasting your time reading it. Is this the case? I realize you often don't answer specific questions, but please at least answer this one "yes" or "no."

Best regards,
Paul

P.S.: Yes, there really are mountains on the Moon, and Jupiter really does have moons. But before you report me to Rome as a heritic, please realize that the Catholic Church has retracted its erroneous position from Galileo's day.

You come across to me as being sincere. Jon has pointed out to you issues that the PM article fails to address. This article addresses the issues you raise.

I am a little puzzled to why. Supporters of the official 9/11 story want to use a magazine article to endorse the official story.

Why not refer to the definitive work on 9/11, the 9/11 Commission Report?

Are you implying? We the American people should be happy that our answers are in a magazine article by PM. Come on please! Give US a break!

Bottom line, the official story line is debunked by simple high school physics. Case closed. Gummit is lying.

STOP SUPPORTING THE TERRORIST. LEARN HIGH SCHOOL PHYSICS.

Lets have a real forsenic investigation to uncover the truth about the biggest terrorist attack on US soil. Not leave to PM
to come up with answers. My goodness what is the world coming too. People just sucking down the official spin.

Regards,
Gary
911truthnc.org
"Not being aware of these facts is in itself an evil because ignorance serves evil." Juri Lina - "Architects of Deception"

Hello, Andrew, and thank you for your comment. I read the article with interest.

John, a structural engineer at my place of employment on 9/11, was watching the horrors unfold on television that terrible morning. As the towers were burning, he predicted they would collapse because of the fires. John certainly is not a dumb man, as he predicted the "official version" before it happened. And, as an architect, I fully trust him as a structural engineering consultant. Also, I vouch for John's character as an honest man.

So, is John - in your opinion - someone who helped orchestrate the 9/11 attacks? Should I avoid him? After all, I want neither a dumb man nor a dishonest man working with me with my architectural projects.

Thank you for your polite response to my comments, and thank you for the article you sent me the link to.

I took high school physics, thank you. Afterwards, I got a degree in architecture. Next, I worked as an intern architect for several years, then passed a 36-hour architect registration exam to receive my license to practice architecture. I now design buildings. The quote at the end of your comments is ironic, as I am an architect. (I hope you don't think I'm evil because I doubt the US government instigated the 9/11 attacks!) Yes, ignorance does indeed serve evil. That's why I make an effort to be as well informed as possible on issues as important as terrorism. Key to being well informed is reading different points of view.

I refer to the PM magazine article because it is a very well-written and thoroughly researched article. I find it very convincing, as it is in line with facts I have learned through my studies and through observation in my practice. I believe it's a straightforward enough article for a reasonably intelligent lay person to understand. If PM is wrong, I certainly want to know why. I'm a little puzzled why you're a little puzzled why I refer to the PM article instead of the 9/11 Commission Report, considering how the latter has been denounced and vilified by the folks who believe the US government instigated the attacks. People in your camp distrust the government, and demand an independent investigation. But when an independent investigation is done, you trash it if its conclusions don't match your world-view. It is not fair-minded to approach a question with your mind already made up.

You write "Lets (sic) have a real forsenic (sic) investigation to uncover the truth about the biggest terrorist attack on US soil. Not leave to PM to come up with answers." Who do you recommend conduct this investigation? The Scholars for 9/11 Truth? An organization whose web site responds to the PM book by posting - on its home page - a link to a blog written by someone who refuses to read the PM book?

It's not just PM that concurs with what you call "the official story line." Concurrence is also found in thousands of other magazine and newspaper articles, in radio and TV investigative reports, in books, in various studies conducted by many universities and professional associations, plus the testimonies of thousands of witnesses. (I myself am a witness, as I was driving past the Pentagon when it was attacked.)

The Peter Meyer article you sent me is problematic for many reasons. I'll address one of the problems. The article states: "Based on data provided by Corus Construction Centre, and assuming that the WTC architects followed the usual safety margins for load-bearing steel structures, we may conclude that even if the fire had heated the steel to 1022°F (550°C) that would not have been sufficient to cause the towers to collapse." I concur. Fire alone would not have been sufficient to cause the WTC to collapse. And fire alone did not cause the WTC to collapse. Other steel structures have had hot fires without collapsing, but none of these fires were accompanied by the building's sprinkler system being knocked out, AND fireproofing being knocked off the steel structural members, AND a huge amount of flaming jet fuel igniting several acres of office furnishings simultaneously, AND a huge portion of the load-bearing structural members being severed by an airplane collision. The WTC towers were each engineered to withstand the impact of a 707 (the largest aircraft at the time the towers were designed in the 1960's). The engineers envisioned an accidental collision, which would be a plane coming in for a landing on a cloudy day. Under this scenario, most of the fuel would be used up, and the plane would not be traveling at full throttle. The designers envisioned a collision due to accident, not malice. Considering the actual planes were larger, and traveling very fast, with nearly full fuel tanks, it's amazing the towers stood as long as they did.

Most building codes call for structural members in most non-residential buildings of two or more stories to have fire protection. In steel buildings, this is often a fluffy compound sprayed onto the girders, beams, columns, pans, braces, plates, angles, rods, turnbuckles, welds, bolts, rivets, etc. Low-rise buildings generally are required to have one- or two-hour protection - that is, be rated to withstand fire for a given period of time before collapsing. Taller buildings usually require higher fire ratings. (Single family homes, one story commercial structures, and warehouses generally require far less stringent fire ratings.) Fire ratings of various building assemblies are assessed - for a fee - by Underwriters Laboratories, an independent organization (which, by the way, agrees with what you call the "official storyline.") Spray-on fireproofing is delicate, and can be knocked of by hand. Usually this isn't a problem, as the coated structural members are usually out-of-reach, or concealed behind building finishes. When a fire breaks out, the compound insulates the steel and prevents it from getting hot enough to deform. (Note: Many 9/11 conspiracy theorists incorrectly claim that steel must melt in order for a steel structure to collapse. In fact, steel looses much of its strength, as its temperature increases, long before it liquifies.) In the case of the WTC, the airplane impacts dislodged much of the fireproofing material from the steel. In an instant, the fire-rating of the steel was greatly diminished. This exposed steel became very hot from the fires, and the heat spread to parts of the structure where the fireproofing was intact. This compounded the problem, as the intact fireproofing prevented the heat from dissipating. The hotter the steel became, the less weight it was able to bear. And you know what? The steel was bearing FAR more weight than it was before the crashes! Why? Because so many columns had been severed. The remaining columns had to support far more weight than they were designed to carry. The reduced fire protection was one of many reasons the towers ultimately collapsed.

There, I have just refuted part of Peter Meyer's article. I could go on, but I'll leave it at that. If you do not agree with what I wrote above, I would like to know why. What exactly did I write that is, in your opinion, incorrect? What is the correct information? As a architect, I am entrusted to protect the public from dangerous construction. I take this responsibility VERY seriously. If my understanding of the nature of fireproofing is incorrect or incomplete, I want to know so I can correct my building designs.

Again, if you want to change my mind, I am all ears. Send me SPECIFIC points to consider.

In conclusion, I thank you again for your civil tone. Polite communication is the best way to debate, but, alas, is so often absent from Internet arguments. Yes, I am sincere, and I value nothing more than the truth.

I look forward to receiving feedback from you on my writing concerning the fireproofing of steel buildings. Jon's articls cites other articles that state that explosives MUST have been used to bring down the towers. I disagree. One writed Jon cites insists that "common sense" dictates that explosives must have been used. I HEREBY REFUTE THE AFOREMENTIONED CLAIM: As an architect, my position is that the absence of fireproofing seriously compromized the structural integrity of the WTC towers, and contributed significantly to their collapse. The damage to the fireproofing, AND the lack of a working sprinkler system, AND the simultaneous combustion of acres of office furnishings, AND the airplanes' severe damage to the towers' structural members, all are sufficient to explain the collapse of the towers without the use of explosives.

Jon asked me to refute points raised in his article. I certainly have done so. He refuses to answer me. I believe his refusal is due to his inability to refute what I write. Gary and Andrew: Perhaps you can respond. As I've stated before, I have an open mind. Witness the fact that I read all points of view concerning the 9/11 attacks (something Jon refuses to do). If you can provide me with a convincing argument that fireproofing, sprinkler systems, and intact beams and columns are not important, please let me know. If you believe explosives brought down the towers, you infer the towers would have not collapse without explosives, despite all the damage that was done. I cannot conceive that this is the case, but if you know something I don't, I'm all ears. I don't want the buildings I design to collapse in a fire. If you can furnish me with information on fireproofing, sprinkler systems, and steel structures that supersedes everything I have learned about the topic through my studies and prefessional practice, I want to see it. I want to be as well informed as possible so my buildings will be as safe as possible.

Ronald Wieck: No, Jon, there is no chance that you will appear on 'Hardfire.' You simply have nothing to say. We are not willing waste airtime on a disingenuous recital of silly canards that have been debunked a thousand times. Your banning tactics reveal you to be a coward as well as an ignorant fool. You are an unworthy adversary.